If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

I am all for people making a living - but if they (or their fanboys) cannot handle criticism of all kinds, they need to go away. That is part of business - a certain segment of society is guaranteed to know more than the shills.

​I am all for criticism, but a critic that never tests/trys that specific product is just a slanderer....imagine a food critic judging ones food based on the ingredients alone without ever tasting it....that critic would be fired and or sued as that is how business works...slanderers like magical gurus need to go away.

Comment

​I am all for criticism, but a critic that never tests/trys that specific product is just a slanderer....imagine a food critic judging ones food based on the ingredients alone without ever tasting it....that critic would be fired and or sued as that is how business works...slanderers like magical gurus need to go away.

Agreed (although I don't think they should go away, but maybe keep more of an open mind)

Comment

Food critics judge sans tasting all the time - why? They are already knowledgeable about these things, and most of them are able to, from a recipe, have a very good idea of what they are getting themselves into prior to tasting. Similarly to the certain segment of the population that is more knowledgeable of loudspeaker design than the shills (and apparently some of the fanboys). They can look at some of the basic design "features" and make informed opinions on performance. The same holds true for pretty much any consumer good - dig past the ad copy and apply practical experience to the product itself and an informed opinion can be made.

FWIW, never having heard a Tekton design I am not commenting on its potential performance other than to agree with those who have pointed out what are considered flaws inherent to the design (whether Tekton overcomes those limitations or not is still on the table), but I *have* learned most shills and their fanboys are quick to attack when presented with pointed questions about their product.

My experiences at Axpona as well as a handful of visits to "hifi" shops has rendered me incapable of taking manufacturer claims at face value - and it has taught me that a lot of people are still willing to let popularity/uniqueness color their opinions to the point they are unreliable. To wit: a room full of Kef fanboys swooning over a pair of speakers that were clipping the amps. To this day, I have no idea what a Kef Blade sounds like - the only thing that stood out was the damn things clipping multiple channels of Parasound power. People were literally shushing each other and staring in awe at the pretty speakers. Similar thing in one of the Dynaudio rooms - only in this case they had the speakers crammed in a corner and people were gushing over the "awesome bass". Even worse were the people who were nearly creaming themselves over Zu crapola.

In any event, I sincerely doubt the Tekton offers any level of performance that most under-10K speakers cannot meet or exceed. While I would like to hear them, I will not go out of my way to do so. I

Don't listen to me - I have not sold any $150,000 speakers.

Comment

Perhaps a final thought. Why argue over all of this. Odds are know one here is going to buy anyways. Most of us here are DIY speaker people. Even if XYZ company has amazing speakers. Experimenting, building, painting cutting is what we are all about.

We should embrace new ideas, and give some kind kudos for trying unique things, and not simply criticize.

I wonder if one of us here came up with an interesting design and posted pics if everyone here would start flaming that person. Perhaps offer advice yes.

So why don't we tone it down a bit, and get back to what we love. This discussion is not getting anywhere.

Comment

Perhaps a final thought. Why argue over all of this. Odds are know one here is going to buy anyways. Most of us here are DIY speaker people. Even if XYZ company has amazing speakers. Experimenting, building, painting cutting is what we are all about.

We should embrace new ideas, and give some kind kudos for trying unique things, and not simply criticize.

I wonder if one of us here came up with an interesting design and posted pics if everyone here would start flaming that person. Perhaps offer advice yes.

So why don't we tone it down a bit, and get back to what we love. This discussion is not getting anywhere.

Agreed! I also agree that much of the criticism of the Tekton site is warranted. There is a claim of vast superiority with no real explanation of what he is doing and why it is better. There should be a way for him to give a description of his methods while still concealing his "proprietary" property. This would give more credibility to his claims.

This thread degraded into a lot of worthless banter when it could have been a worthwhile discussion of design flaws or potential.

Comment

That was the first iteration of the 'Art of War', and the demo had some issues with only one or 2 channels playing. It's second incarnation flanked the setup with a pair 18" RSS woofers. The premise is a point source 5.1 setup. When 5x12" woofers are moving on the X.1 channel, it gets fun pretty fast. Bill Edwards did a good job building that. The mirror works like that of the CBT with a hard reflection, and creates a supposed 90 degree dispersion pattern from the crease of the baffle to mirror. Depending on the position of the listener, the mirror could be propped up in front to change the angle. The complexity had to be seen to be appreciated, all running from an 18AWG power cord.

Later,
Wolf

Hi Wolf. I had two reasons for asking. First, I was intrigued. Especially that he incorporates a mirror that will more fully develop an "inverted mirror image", the way that the CBT is designed to work, but better in that for mid and high frequencies it will have less damping of reflections. What I find a bit questionable on that aspect is that this positioning (unless raised off of the floor, not practical) will provide an apparent center right at the plane of the floor at the speaker point. Even a system such as the old B&W 801 had an easily discernible position too close to the floor to suit my taste when I was buying speakers. This in well treated room sitting about 15' away.

The second reason is that it seems to be similar in design to the topic of this thread. That is, with the mirror reflection completing the system, it has a center tweeter with a ring of tweeters comprising the next section of the multi-way system. Now if this is the center channel only, it's much less of an issue, though I would still think that it would place the image to close to the floor when used in a 5.1 way cinema system and the off-axis may be at issue.

How were the main speakers designed? Similar or standard vertical multi-way?

Comment

U.S. patent #9247339 (issued January 26th, 2016) allows us to literally align the moving mass of speaker cones to the harmonic spectra of the musical instruments being played. Does this have any real meaning?

It might if it was explained how to do it. One requirement for a patent is that the invention be described in a manner that allows someone with a reasonable amount of experience in the field to construct it. Nothing in the patent does that, nor is there anything to indicate not only how it works, but if it works. It also makes the patent about as useful as mammary glands on a male bovine. It's claims can't be defended if no one can figure out what they are.

Comment

It might if it was explained how to do it. One requirement for a patent is that the invention be described in a manner that allows someone with a reasonable amount of experience in the field to construct it. Nothing in the patent does that, nor is there anything to indicate not only how it works, but if it works. It also makes the patent about as useful as mammary glands on a male bovine. It's claims can't be defended if no one can figure out what they are.

They would have to enforce that patent if someone else attempted to build and sell a similar design. I suspect that would settle the issue. How could that patent actually be enforced?

It seems to me that the patent is only useful as an advertising tool, not something that anyone is likely to "violate" in a competing product. It's not protecting anything real.